People v. Nieves CA1/1

I. BACKGROUND

Defendant was charged in an information, filed January 22, 2013, with possession of hydrocodone (Health & Saf. Code, § 11350, subd. (a)) and being under the influence of methamphetamine (Health & Saf. Code, § 11550, subd. (a).) During voir dire at trial, a prospective juror expressed the view that drug sentences are too harsh. The prosecutor told the juror drug offenders in defendant’s position have

1 Defendant admits there is “strong evidence of guilt for being under the influence of methamphetamine” and only appeals the possession conviction. 1 the option to obtain treatment instead of going to trial, stating “this is a straight-up possession” charge. The prosecutor also told the jury the instant case was “not a three- strikes case.” In both instances, defense counsel promptly objected without specifying grounds or asking for an admonition. The court sustained both objections, telling the parties to “Please move on,” after the first objection and commenting after the second, “Please stay away from other issues.” Defense counsel did not ask the court to strike the prosecutor’s statements or instruct the jury to disregard them. During a break in the proceedings,…